# Economic Analysis o for High Production Volume

PROPOSAL VERSION (EPA DOCKET EPA

1 

# Economic Analysis o f the Significant NewUse Rule High Production Volume Chemical Substances

PROPOSAL VERSION (EPA DOCKET EPA - HQ - OPPT -2010 - 0520 )



# May 2 6 , 201 1

—Does not contain TSCA CBI

Prepared by: Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 

# the Significant NewUse Rule Chemical Substances

Does not contain TSCA CBI —

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.i 

## Contributors The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Lynne Blake - Hedges. Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP -W08 - 010.ii 

## Executive Summary This report estimates the costs of a proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) being proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for certain chemicals that were originally part of EPA’s High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program 1



### . The proposed rule will apply to 22 chemicals that remain unsponsored/orphan under the Challenge Program and for which EPA could not make necessary exposure findings under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TS CA) section (4)(A)(1)(B) in order to include in a testing rule. EPA considered relevant factors related to the projected manufacturing and processing volumes and exposure extent, among other things when identifying the 22 chemicals subject to the proposed rule. The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers, importers, or processors of the 22 chemicals to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the occurrence of any significant new use. A significant new use is defined as: 1) use in a consumer product; or 2 ) substantial exposure to workers (i.e., exposure to 1,000 workers ) , for any of the chemicals . A firm intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), incurring an estimated submission cost of $8, 112 per chemical, and potentially other minor costs . The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prevent or limit potentially adverse effects from that activity before it occurs. In addition to the firms that make a SNUN submission, the proposed SNUR may also impact firms that do not make a submission. By avoiding a significant new use, a firm can avoid submission and testing costs but may incur other compliance costs. The firm may also incur “hidden” costs; for example, it could forego profitable opportunities to use the chemical in an application that would be a significant new use or limit production volume to avoid a significant new use. Costs are estimated at the firm level and reflect the burden of a SNUR on the firms that make a submission. The hidden costs to the firms that do not make a submission are not quantified. EPA receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. However, the number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities.

1 HPV chemicals are chemicals that are manufactured or imported in amounts equal to or greater than one million pounds per year.iii 

## Table of Contents Contributors ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... i Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ ii List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. iv 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 5 1.1 Statutory Authority ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5 1.2 Summary of Methodology ................................ ................................ ............................. 5 1.3 Organization of this Report ................................ ................................ ............................ 5 2

– Affected Entities ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 7 2.1 Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule ................................ ................................ ....... 7 2.2 Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNUR ................................ ......................... 8 2.3 Potentially Affected Companies ................................ ................................ .................. 11 3

– Industry Compliance Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ 13 3.1 Wage Rates ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13 3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs ................................ ................................ .................. 14 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup ...... 15 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee ................................ ............................... 16 3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a SNUN ............................. 17 3.2.5 Recordkeeping for Companies that do not Submit a SNUN ............................... 19 3.2.6 Import Certification ................................ ................................ ............................. 19 3.2.7 Export Notification ................................ ................................ .............................. 20 3.3 Summary of Per Submission Costs, by Option ................................ ............................ 22 3.4 Likelihood of SNUN Submission ................................ ................................ ................ 23 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions ................................ .............................. 24 4

– Agency Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 25 4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff ................................ ................................ ........................... 25 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs ................................ ................................ ............................... 26 4.3 Export Notification Cost ................................ ................................ .............................. 29 5

– Benefits ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 30 6

– Additional Analyses ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 31 6.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act ................................ ................................ ........................... 31 6.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ................................ ................................ .. 32 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) ................................ ................................ ................. 32 6.4 Executive Order 13132, Federalism ................................ ................................ ............. 33 6.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice ................................ ........................... 33 6.6 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children ................................ ........................... 33 6.7 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments ................................ .............................. 33 6.8 Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ................................ ..... 34 7

– References ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 Appendix A: Inflators and Wage Rates ................................ ................................ ......................... 38iv 

## List of Tables Table 1: CAS Number and Names for Chemicals Subject to the Proposed SNUR ........................ 7 Tabl e 2: US Production/Importation Volumes and Number of Workers Exposed by Chemical .. 10 Table 3: Manufacturers and Importers Potentially Affected by the Proposed SNUR ................... 11 Table 4: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2009 ................................ ............................... 14 Table 5: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters ................................ ......... 15 Table 6: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Si gnature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First- Time Submitters ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16 Table 7: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form ................................ .................... 17 Table 8: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form ................................ . 17 Table 9: Annual Per- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement ................................ ......... 18 Table 10: Annual Per- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement for Companies that Choose not to Submit a SNUN ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 19 Table 11: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices ................................ .......................... 21 Table 12: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification ................................ ................ 22 Table 13: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 23 Table 14: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates ................................ ................................ ... 26 Table 15: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs ................................ ...... 26 Table 16: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing .................... 28 Table 17: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2009$) .............. 29 Table 18: Estimate of Impacts on Small Business ................................ ................................ ........ 32 Table A - 1: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates ................................ ................................ .............. 40 Table A -2: Derivation of Inflation Factors ................................ ................................ .................... 425 

## 1 – Introduction This report estimates the costs of the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for certain chemicals that remain unsponsored/orphans under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program2



### . The proposed rule a pplies to 22 chemicals . The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers, importers, or processors of the 22 chemicals to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the occurrence of any significant new use. A significant new use for this rule is defined as: 1) use in a consumer product; or 2 ) substantial exposure to workers (i.e., exposure to 1,000 workers ) , for any of the chemicals . A firm intending to engage in these activiti es would be required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) . The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prevent or limit potentially adverse effects from that activity before it occurs. 

### 1.1 Statutory Au thority Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 26 04(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). The general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart A. 

### 1.2 Summary

of Methodology This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society of the proposed rule by identifying the costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping, and the costs to EPA of administering the rule. Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission of required information for significant new uses of the subject chemicals ; export notification; and recordkeeping. Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the rule. For this analysis, small entity impact is defined as a small business’ estimated cost of compliance with the proposed rule as a percent of sales. 3 

### Data sources for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired f rom government publications, and supplementary market research to produce an estimate of the universe of affected entities and measure the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. In addition to costs, t

his report qualitatively discusses the benefits of the proposed rule based on the value of the information it will provide. The benefits analysis was undertaken to address the implicit call for cost-benefit balancing contained in TSCA, as well as the requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

### 1.3 Organization of this Report The remainder of this report provides EPA’s economic analysis in support of the proposed rule. The chemical substances and companies affected are characterized in Chapter 2 . Chapter 3 contains estimates 2 HPV chemicals are chemicals that are manufactured or imported in amounts equal to or greater than one million pounds per year . Historic information on the HPV Challenge Program can be found at www.epa.gov/hpv . 3 Other small entities such as local and state governments are not expected to be impacted by the proposed rule.6



### of the industry cost of complying with the proposed rule, and Chapter 4 shows estimates of the government costs associated with the administration of the proposed rule. Chapter 5 addresses the benefits of the proposed rule. Several additional impact analyses are presented in Chapter 6 , including: small entity impact analysis, as mandated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ; a burden hour analysis that responds to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); an analysis of unfunded mandates that pertains to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); an analysis of environmental justice implications that addresses the requirements of Executive Order 12898; and an analysis of children’s health pertinent to Executive Order 13045. Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in 2009 dollars.7 

## 2 – Af fected Entities 2.1 Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule This SNUR applies to 22 high production volume (HPV) chemicals. HPV chemicals are those that are manufactured or imported in amounts equal to or greater than 1 million pounds per year . EPA is concurrently proposing a test rule requiring manufacturers and processors of 23 HPV chemicals to develop screening level health, environmental, and fate data based on their exposure potential . EPA has preliminarily determined that each of the 45 (total) substances is produced in substantial quantities and made preliminary findings that the 23 chemicals subject to the testing rule may be released in substantial quantities and/or may expose a substantial number of people . However , for the remaining 22 chemicals, EPA does not have exposure information to support a finding of substantial exposure. Therefore, EPA is proposing to regulate them under a SNUR. The 22 chemicals subject to the SNUR are listed in Table 1 . Table 1 : CAS Registry Number and Name s for Chemicals Subject to the Proposed SNUR CAS RN Chemical Abstract Index Name 1 98 - 16 - 8 Benzenamine, 3 - (trifluoromethyl) - 2 100 - 53 - 8 Benzenemethanethiol 3 104 - 91 - 6 Phenol, 4 -nitroso 4 110 - 03 - 2 2,5 - Hexanediol, 2,5 - dimethyl 5 124 - 63 - 0 Methanesulfonyl chloride 6 142 - 30 - 3 3 - Hexyne - 2,5 - diol, 2,5 - dimethyl 7 460 - 00 - 4 Benzene, 1 -bromo - 4 - fluoro 8 542 - 92 - 7 1,3 - Cyclopentadiene 9 553 - 26 - 4 4,4' - Bipy ridine 10 8007 - 45 - 2 Tar, coal 11 28106 - 30 - 1 Benzene, ethenylethyl 12 35203 - 06 - 6 Benzenamine, 2 - ethyl - 6 - methyl -N - methylene 13 35203 - 08 - 8 Benzenamine, 2,6 - diethyl -N - methylene 14 37734 - 45 - 5 Carbonochloridothioic acid, S - (phenylmethyl) ester 15 37764 - 25 - 3 Acetamide, 2,2 - dichloro -N,N - di - 2 -propen- 1 - yl 16 61789 - 72 - 8 Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides 17 61790 - 13 - 4 Naphthenic acids, sodium salts 18 65996 - 91 - 0 Distillates (coal tar), upper 19 68308 - 01 - 0 Tail gas (petroleum) , cracked distillate hydrotreater stripper 20 68478 - 20 - 6 Residues (petroleum) , steam- cracked petroleum distillates cyclopentadiene conc., C4 -

cyclopentadiene - free 21 68526 - 82 - 9 Alkenes, C6 - 10, hydroformylation products, high -boiling 22 68909 - 77 - 3 Ethanol, 2,2' - oxybis - , reaction products with ammonia, mo rpholine derivs. residues8



### 2.2 Significant New Uses under the Proposed SNUR EPA may promulgate a SNUR for a substance when potential use could result in significant changes in human exposure or environmental release levels and/or that concern exists about the substance’s health or environmental effects (40 CFR §721.170) . According to TSCA Section 5(a)(2), the determination that a chemical use qualifies as a significant new use must consider all relevant factors, including:

 The projected volume of manufactu ring , importation, and processing of the chemical substance;  The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance;  The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance; and  The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance. Usually, to determine what would constitute a significant new use of the chemicals subject to a SNUR, EPA would also consider relevant information about the toxicity of the substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four factors listed above . In this case, EPA has little or no data, other than the production volumes and potential number of exposed industrial workers reported to the 2006 IUR, to use in its considerations. Based on IUR reports all the chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR are used solely for industrial purposes . Potential increases in the number of workers likely to be exposed could result not only from increases in production of these chemicals for industrial use s, but also from increases in production due to the commencement of consumer or commercial uses for these chemicals. Changes in manufacturing, processing, distribution, or disposal practices could also result in increased exposure to workers . Any commencement of a consumer or commercial use is also expected to automatically increase the type, form, magnitude and duration of exposure to consumers and/or commercial workers . Beyond those obvious exposures, there would be potential for additional exposures and /or releases to people and/or the environment resulting from distribution in commerce and disposal practices. Therefore, EPA is proposing to define the significant new use as: 1) use in a consumer product; or 2) substantial exposure to workers (i.e., exposure to 1,000 workers ) A company would be expected to submit a SNUN for any of the chemicals included in the SNUR prior to initiating a new use. For each of the chemicals regulated under this proposed SNUR, Table 2 contains the publicly available production/import volume range s for all IUR reporting cycles since 1986 , as well as the number of workers exposed in 2006 , aggregated at the national level . This information is not publicly available at a company - specific level due to confidential business information claims. However, EPA did examine confidential IUR data to assess the production trends of the chemicals found in Table 2 . By analyzing actual volumes instead of ranges, EPA found that the production volumes for the majority of the 22 chemicals have decreased or stayed relatively static over the 20 years that IUR data has been collected. Only five chemicals experienced a significant growth in production volume between the 2002 and 2006 reporting years. However, of those five chemicals, only one has a higher production volume in 2006 than it did in 1986, indicating there is a long term reduction in the production volumes of the other four9



### chemicals. This would indicate that exposure to these chemical is likely to stay below SNUR limits for most firms for substantial worker exposure. There was no consumer use information reported during the most recent IUR submission period (2006), for any of the chemicals subject to the proposed rule (EPA, 2010b) . Therefore EPA expects there is no use of these chemicals in consumer products. In additi on , none of the chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR are require d to be reported under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) ; therefore there are no release data for these chemicals (EPA, 2010a).10



### Table 2 : US Production/Importation Volume s and Number of Workers Exposed by Chemical

CAS RN Chemical 1986 US Import/ Production Volume (M illions of Pounds) 1 1990 US

Import/ Production Volume (M illions of Pounds) 1 1994 US

Import/ Production Volume (M illions of Pounds) 1 1998 US

Import/ Production Volume (M illions of Pounds) 1 2002 US

Import/ Production Volume (M illions of Pounds) 1 2006 US

Import/ Production Volume (M illions of Pounds) 2 Number of

Workers Exposed in 2006 2 98 - 16 - 8 Benzenamine, 3 - (trifluoromethyl) - 0.01 - 0.50 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 to 99 100 - 53 - 8 Benzenemethanethiol No Reports 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 1 to 99 104 - 91 - 6 Phenol, 4 -nitroso - 0.50 - 1 0.50 - 1 0.50 - 1 0.50 - 1 0.50 - 1 1 - 10 1 to 99 110 - 03 - 2 2,5 - Hexanediol, 2,5 - dimethyl - 0.50 - 1 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 124 - 63 - 0 Methanesulfonyl chloride 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 142 - 30 - 3 3 - Hexyne - 2,5 - diol, 2,5 - dimethyl - 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 0.01 - 0.50 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 460 - 00 - 4 Benzene, 1 -bromo - 4 - fluoro - 0.01 - 0.50 1 - 10 0.50 - 1 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 542 - 92 - 7 1,3 - Cyclopentadiene 1 - 10 50 - 100 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 1 - 10 1 to 99 553 - 26 - 4 4,4' - Bipy ridine 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 100 to 999 8007 - 45 - 2 Tar, coal 100 - 500 100 - 500 100 - 500 100 - 500 10 - 50 1 - 10 1 to 99 28106 - 30 - 1 Benzene, ethenylethyl - 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 35203 - 06 - 6 Benzenamine, 2 - ethyl - 6 - methyl -N - methylene - 0.50 - 1 1 - 10 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 1 to 99 35203 - 08 - 8 Benzenamine, 2,6 - diethyl -N - methylene - 50 - 100 50 - 100 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 1 to 99 37734 - 45 - 5 Carbonochloridothioic acid, S - (phenylmethyl) ester No Reports 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 37764 - 25 - 3 Acetamide, 2,2 - dichloro -N,N - di - 2 -propen- 1 - yl - 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 1 to 99 61789 - 72 - 8 Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl(hydrogenated

tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 0.50 - 1 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 61790 - 13 - 4 Naphthenic acids, sodium salts 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 65996 - 91 - 0 Distillates (coal tar), upper 100 - 500 100 - 500 100 - 500 100 - 500 100 - 500 1 - 10 100 to 999 68308 - 01 - 0 Tail gas (petroleum) , cracked distillate hydrotreater

stripper 100 - 500 100 - 500 1 - 10 No Reports No Reports 10 - 50 100 to 999 68478 - 20 - 6 Residues (petroleum) , steam- cracked petroleum distillates

cyclopentadiene conc., C4 - cyclopentadiene - free 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 No Reports 10 - 50 1 to 99 68526 - 82 - 9 Alkenes, C6 - 10, hydroformylation products, high -boiling 10 - 50 1 - 10 10 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 50 1 - 10 100 to 999 68909 - 77 - 3 Ethanol, 2,2' - oxybis - , reaction products with ammonia,

mo rpholine derivs. residues 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1 - 10 1

– 10 1 - 10 100 to 999 Source: 1 EP A, 20 10c . US EPA, Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Database, “Non - confidential Production Volume information 1986 - 2002 ”. Available at (http://www.epa.gov/iur/tools/data/2002 - vol.html). Updated May 1 8 , 2010. 2 EP A, 2010b. US EPA, Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Database, “Non - confidential 2006 IUR Company/Chemical Records”. Available at (http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm). Updated May 12, 2010 .11



### 2.3 Potentially

A ffected Companies In contrast to Premanufacture Notification (PMN) requirements, which apply mainly to manufacturers and importers (40 CFR §720.22), the proposed SNUR applies to processors as well as to manufacturers and importers (40 CFR §721.5) . This proposed SNUR would require manufacturers, importers, and processors to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of any of the chemic als for any significant new use . Table 3 provides a list of manufacturer s and importers that reported IUR information for the chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR during the most recent IUR reporting year, 2006 . This list may be incomplete, because it does not include processors. Furthermore, a company may claim production or import of a chemical as TSCA C onfidential Business Information (CBI) and therefore be excluded from the list in Table 3 . In addition, any site that manufacture d or imported less than 25,000 lbs of a chemical during the reporting year (2006) wa s not required to submit data under the IUR rule . Table 3 : Manufacture r s and Importers Potentially Affected by the P roposed SNUR CAS RN Chemical Company 98 - 16 - 8 Benzenamine, 3 - (trifluoromethyl) - Rhodia Inc Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 100 - 53 - 8 Benzenemethanethiol Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP 104 - 91 - 6 Phenol, 4 -nitroso - TSCA CBI 110 - 03 - 2 2,5 - Hexanediol, 2,5 - dimethyl Akzo Nobel Polymer Chemicals LLC Arkema Inc. Degussa Corporation 124 - 63 - 0 Methanesulfonyl chloride Aceto Corporation Arkema Inc. The Dow Chemical Company 142 - 30 - 3 3 - Hexyne - 2,5 - diol, 2,5 - dimethyl Alcan International Network U.S.A. Inc. Degussa Corporation 460 - 00 - 4 Benzene, 1 -bromo - 4 - fluoro Clariant Corporation Diaz Intermediates Corp 542 - 92 - 7 1,3 - Cyclopentadiene Velsicol Chemical Corporatio 553 - 26 - 4 4,4' - Bipy ridine Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 8007 - 45 - 2 Tar, coal Tremco Incorporated Vertellus Specialites Inc. 28106 - 30 - 1 Benzene, ethenylethyl - The Dow Chemical Company 35203 - 06 - 6 Benzenamine, 2 - ethyl - 6 - methyl -N - methylene - Monsanto Company 35203 - 08 - 8 Benzenamine, 2,6 - diethyl -N - methylene - Monsanto Company 37734 - 45 - 5 Carbonochloridothioic acid, S - (phenylmethyl) ester Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 37764 - 25 - 3 Acetamide, 2,2 - dichloro -N,N - di - 2 -propen- 1 - yl - The Dow Chemical Company 61789 - 72 - 8 Quaternary ammonium compounds,

benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC 61790 - 13 - 4 Naphthenic acids, sodium salts Merichem Chemicals & Refinery Services, LLC 65996 - 91 - 0 Distillates (coal tar), upper Vertellus Specialites Inc 68308 - 01 - 0 Tail gas (petroleum) , cracked distillate hydrotreater

stripper Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company12

CAS RN Chemical Company 68478 - 20 - 6 Residues (petroleum) , steam- cracked petroleum

distillates cyclopentadiene conc., C4 - cyclopentadiene - free Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP 68526 - 82 - 9 Alkenes, C6 - 10, hydroformylation products, high boiling Atlas Refinery, Inc. BASF Corporation 68909 - 77 - 3 Ethanol, 2,2' - oxybis - , reaction products with

ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues Huntsman Corporation Source: EPA, 2010b. US EPA, Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Database, “Non - confidential 2006 IUR Company/Chemical Records”. Available at (http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm). Updated May 12, 2010 .13 

## 3

– Industry

Compliance Costs The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifies that any manufacture, import, or processing of the chemicals for a designated significant new use will require reporting under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA . Therefore, a firm intending to manufacture, import, and/or process this chemical for these applications must submit a SNUN . Alternatively, a firm can decide to continue to manufacture, import, and/or proc ess these chemicals in such a way that it is not considered a significant new use . The firm, therefore, has two options:

 Option 1 : Submit a SNUN . A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for a si gnificant new use, which, in this case, means any manufacture, importing, and/or processing of this chemical for use in a consumer product or with a substantial exposure to workers (i.e., 1,000 workers) . The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the new use of the substance; the SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs . If EPA allows the manufacture, import, and/or processing of any of the 22 chemicals for a significant new use, then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user f ee) plus, if there is any export of these chemicals, the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12 (b) requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Section 3.2.7 for details).

 Option 2 : Comply with SNUR limits ( not manufacture, import, and/or process a new use of the chemical ) . A firm can avoid engaging in a Significant New Use and submitting a SNUN by not manufacturing , importing, and/or processing any of the 22 listed chemicals in a manner such that they would exceed the threshold . That is, if the firm does not manufacture, import, or process the chemical for a consumer product or does not have substantial exposure to workers (i.e., 1,000 workers) , it would meet all applicable SNUR requirements. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it may entail the “hidden” cost of the foregone profit as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned , and may involve substituting one of the subject chemicals for another, more costly substance . If the firm elects to produce the chemical for research and development (R&D) purposes only (an exemption for R&D purposes is provided in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping . In addition, if the firm exports any existing stockpiles of the chemicals, it will incur the export notification costs. The firm may also pursue this option temporarily by comp lying with SNUR restrictions while also pursuing Option 1. Due to the uncertainty related to this option, and EPA’s expectation that affected entities will select Option 1, the costs of Option 2 are not fully quantified in this report. The remainder of thi s chapter estimates the quantified portion of costs associated with the proposed SNUR for these uses of the subject chemicals . Section 3.1 summarize s the wage rates used in this chapter . Section 3.2 provides the unit industry compliance costs , including the costs of rule familiarization, registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool , completing the SNUN form, submission fee , import certification, and export notification . Total costs under each option are presented in Section 3.3 . 

### 3.1 Wage Rates The proposed rule involves activities that may require efforts by employees in three labor classifications: managerial, technical, and clerical. Costs for each activity are calculated by estimating the labor hours required in each labor category and multiplying those burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. This section presents the estimated wage rate in each labor category.14



### Loaded wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical personnel are derived by combining data on wages and fringe benefits with estimates of overhead rates, following the methodology described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release I nventory Program (EPA, 2002b) . Wage data for each labor category in December 2009 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 2010 a). The loaded wage rate is $68.24 for manageri al labor; $59.49 for technical labor; and $28.31 for clerical labor . 

### Table 4 presents the basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three categories of labor. 

### Appendix A: provides more information on the wage rates and inflators used in this analysis. Table 4 : Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2009 Labor Category Data Sources Wage (2009$) Fringe

Benefit (2009$) Fringes

as % wage Overhead % wage 2 Fringe +

overhead factor Loaded

Wages 1 (2009$) (a) (b) (c)

=(b)/(a) (d) (e)=(c)+

(d)+1 (f)=(a) x

(e) Managerial BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “M gt, Business, and Financial” 3 $42.36 $18.68 44.10% 17% 1.61 $68.24 Professional/ Technical BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “Professional and related“ 3 $35.96 $17.42 48.44% 17% 1.65 $59.49 Clerical BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 $17.21 $8.17 47.47% 17% 1.64 $28.31 1 Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table. 2 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EP A, 2002b), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a). 3 Employer C

osts for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2009. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 10, 201 - (BLS, 2010a). 

### 3.2 Unit Industry

Compliance Costs 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization 

### The proposed rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various requirements. Rule familiarization is estimated to require 0.55 hours of technical labor and 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 200 9a), which measures the costs of mandatory electronic reporting of SNUNs and other TSCA Section 5 notices. As shown in Table 5 , the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization is $50.92.15



### Table 5 : Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour) Technical Labor

(at $59.49/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $68.24/hour) Total Labor Cost

(2009 dollars) Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 0.55 $32.72 0.27 $18.20 0.82 $50.92 Note: Costs may not equal labor wage rate times burden hours as shown, due to rounding. Unrounded estimates were used during the actual cost calculations. Source: BLS, 2010 a ; EPA, 2009a . 3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup 

### The propo sed SNUR requires first- time submitters of any section 5 notice (including Premanufacture Notices (PMNs), Significant New Use Notices (SNUNs), Test Market Exemption (TME) applications, Low Volume Exemption (LVE) notices, Low Exposure/Low Release (LoREX) exemption notices, Biotechnology Notices for genetically modified microorganisms, Notices of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOCs), and support documents to section 5 notices ) to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting to ol, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E -payment account. 4 

### These activities are only required of first-time submitters of any section 5 notice . These activities are estimated to require the following burdens, based on the estimates presented in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 200 9a):

 CDX registration: EPA estimates that companies will spend approximately 0.18 hours per employee to register with CDX, and that an average of four technical staff members and one manager will need to register for each company, totaling approximately 0.92 hours of burden per company.  CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25 hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee. This burden will apply to four technical staff members and one manager per company, totaling 1.25 hours of burden per company. In addition, EPA estimates that a manager will spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing, preparing, and submitting verification forms (Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA. The total burden incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electroni c signature agreements is 1.75 hours. Note that this burden does not include any additional time required to contact EPA’s CDX help desk to notify a change of submitter status, should one occur. Filing the electronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing cost of $2.30 per company (including five $0.44 stamps and five $0.02 business envelopes).

 Payment via Pay.gov account: EPA estimates that one manager per company will spend approximately 0.13 hours setting up a Pay.gov ID account, logging into the system, finding the appropriate form, and filling it out. This burden does not include the time required to click ‘submit’ on the form and wait for payment processing.

4 Although the proposed rule does not require submitters to establish and use a Pay.gov account, the burden estimates in this analysis are conservative insofar as to include the use of Pay.gov as a required activity.16



### As shown in Table 6 , the labor cost associated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup by a first-time submitter is $17 6 . As noted above, an additional $2.30 in mailing cost per company is attributable to these activities, for a total cost of approximately $178 per company. Table 6 : CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First- Time Submitters Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour) Technical Labor

(at $59.49/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $68.24/hour) Total Labor Cost

(2009 dollars) Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost CDX Registration 0.00 $0.00 0.73 $43.63 0.18 $12.51 0.92 $56.13 CDX Electronic Signature 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $59.49 0.75 $51.18 1.75 $11 1 Mailing Cost $2.30 E - Payment (Pay.gov ID) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.13 $9.10 0.13 $9.10 Total 0.00 $0.00 1.73 $103 1.07 $7 3 2.80 $17 8 Note: Costs may not equal labor wage rate times burden hours as shown, due to rounding. Unrounded estimates were used during the actual cost calculations. Source: BLS, 2010 a ; EPA, 2009a . 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee 

### Respondents who choose to submit a SNUN are required to gather and submit information regarding the data elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form. The methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume that the employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the requested information has a reasonable level of familiarity with the company and knowledge of operations at the site. It is assumed that for most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties that require famili arity with EPA, State, and other Federal agency requests for chemical information and do not require additional familiarization or training beyond the basic rule familiarization described above. In addition, this analysis focuses on the marginal costs of submitting information for the proposed rule and not the total costs for the company to comply with a range of other Federal and State environmental, health, and safety regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information. Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of completing a PMN submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for both . The PMN submission costs came from EPA's 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications, which relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA , 1994, Table III -2 and pages III - 11, - 12, and - 13) . The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which became the American Chemistry Council . These burden s include “the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gathering the required information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a file of the submission” (EPA, 1994. p. III 11 - 13) . The burden associated with SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all clerical burden and reduce the recordkeeping17



### burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009 a) . 5 

### In addition, electronic submission is expected to generate and an additional 0.18 hours of technical burden, for the completion of the User Fee Payment Identification Number and email address data elements on the electronic SNUN form. SNUN form completion and electronic submissi on is estimated to require 7 3 . 68 hours of technical labor and 18.00 hours of managerial labor (EPA, 2009a). Table 7 combines the estimated reporting burden and loaded wage rates for all three labor categories to estimate the per- SNUN cost of form completion. The labor cost incurred by a SNUN submission for both large and small business submitters is $5, 612 . Table 7 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $28.31/hour) Technical Labor

(at $59.49/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $68.24/hour) Total Labor Cost (2009 dollars) Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Form Com pletion 0.00 $0.00 73.68 $4,383 18.00 $1,228 91.68 $5,612 Note: Costs may not equal labor wage rate times burden hours as shown, due to rounding , Unrounded estimates were used during the actual cost calculations. Source : 1 Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead . See Appendix A of this report for derivation . Wage rates presented in this table are rounded values; however, unrounded values are used to calculate total labor costs . For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of rounded values. 2 The estimate of no clerical burden is taken from the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notice Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EP A, 2009a, page 7) 3 T echnical and managerial labor burden is from the PMN Amendments RIA (EPA, 1994, Table III - 2) . An additional eleven minutes (0.18 hours) of technical burden is estimated to complete the User Fee Payment Identification Number and Email Address data elements on the Electronic SNUN form (EPA, 2009a page 15). 

### In addition, each submitting large business must pay a $2,500 per- SNUN submission fee, and each submitting small business must pay a $100 per- SNUN submission fee. Table 8 adds the labor cost and submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission. The total cost of a SNUN submission is $8,1 12 for large business submitters and $5,7 12 for small business submitters. Table 8 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form

Reporting Population Labor Cost Submission Fee Total Cost (2009 Dollars) Large Business Submitters $5, 612 $2,500 $8, 112 Small Business Submitters $5, 612 $100 $5, 712 Source : BLS, 2010 a ; EPA, 2009a . ; EPA, 1994 3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a SNUN 

### There are two main types of recordkeeping requirements for the substances listed in the current SNUR: those for companies submitting a SNUN, and those for all companies that manufacture, import or process SNUR-regulated substances, regardless of whether they have made a submission to EPA.

5 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 a) estimates a 0.5 hour clerical and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeeping in addition to the burden estimates from the 1994 RIA, which include the burden for recordkeeping ( EPA, 1994 , p. III - 14) . T hese burden estimates are based on the recordkeeping burden for polymer exceptions and not the recordkeeping burden associated with PMN submissions. Therefore , for this analysis we assume that any reduction in recordkeeping burden is captured in the reduction of the clerical burden, and we do not consider the one hour recordkeeping burden from the ePMN EA in order to avoid double counting .18



### Companies submitting a SNUN must keep records under 40 CFR §721.40 of the information contained in the SNUN . Some EPA reports have assumed that SNUN recordkeeping hours would be five percent of SNUN submission hours, or a bout five to six hours. 6 

### For this report, the SNUN recordkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Section 3.2.3 ) and the SNUN recordkeeping costs under 40 CFR §721.40 were not separately estimated. 7 

### In addition to the recordkeeping re quirements under 40 CFR §721.40 , the proposed SNUR would require that companies must keep additional records under 40 CFR §721.125(a), (b), and (c). Companies are required to keep records; (a) documenting the manufacture and importation volume of the substance and the corresponding dates of manufacture and import ; (b) documenting volumes of the substance purchased in the United States by processors of the substance ; names and addresses of suppliers ; and corresponding dates of purchase ; and (c) documenting the names and addresses (including shipment destination address, if different) of all persons outside the site of manuf acture, importation, or processing to whom the manufacturer, importer, or processor directly sells or transfers the substance, the date of each sale or transfer, and the quantity of the substance sold or transferred on such date. The burden estimate assoc iated with these recordkeeping requirements, 7.11 hours per chemical, is taken from the Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 13 Chemical Substances (EPA, 20 09d , Table C - 14). In that document, EPA calculated the labor and material co sts associated with one page of recordkeeping for a SNUR, based on information in Recordkeeping Costs for a Generic SNUR (Kearney, 1988a) and Estimated Cost of the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (Kearney, 1988b). The total labor and materi als cost of $0.66 per page is calculated using a blended wage rate that incorporates both the cost of technical and clerical labor and the cost materials . 8 

### This burden is then multiplied the number of pages estimated for each type of recordkeeping from Rec ordkeeping Costs for a Generic SNUR (Kearney, 1988a) . Table 9 shows the annual per- chemical cost of recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR §721.125 (a), (b), and (c).. Table 9 : Annual Per- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirem ent [40 CFR 721.125 (a)(b) and (c) ] 40CFR §721.125 Requirement Pages Labor and m aterials cost (2009$) Hours (a) Per Page

(b) Per Chemical

(c)=(a)*(b) Per Page

(d) Per Chemical

(e)=(a)*(d) (a)(b)(c) Volumes & sales/transfer data 485 $0.6585 $319 0.01467 7.11 Source : US EPA, 20 10d . Economic Analysis o f Expedited Significant New Use Rules f or 25 Chemical Substances, Table C 14 .

6 For example, OPPT’s Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal), October 11, 2005, estimates SNUN recordkeeping costs at 5.67 hours (ICR 118.08, page 10). 7 SNUN submission costs estimated in Sectio n 3.2.3 of this report were based on PMN submission costs from a 1994 report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSC Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications ( EPA , 1994) . Page III - 14 of the 1994 report refers to “the normal records kept with a PMN submission which are included in the estimates for submission costs.” Page III - 12 identifies “maintaining a file of the submission” as part of the labor hours for the PMN reporting form. These statements imply that the 95 to 114 total hours for a PMN submission (page III - 10 of EPA 1994) included recordkeeping hours. 8 The cost of $0.66 per page is assumes approximately 9 percent of the recordkeeping burden is incurred by technical labor ( $0.08 per page) , and 91 percent is incurred conducted by clerical labor ($0.38 per page) , and incorporates the costs of photocopying ($0.09 per page) , a file cabinet ($0.09 per page) , and other miscellaneous materials ($0.02 per page) . All costs have been adjusted for inflation and are presented in 2009$. More information on the derivation of these costs is found on pages C - 20 and C21 of the Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 13 Chemical Substances (EPA, 2009d)19

3.2.5 Recordkeeping for Companies that do not Submit a SNUN 

### If a firm that manufacture s , imports , or process es a substance subject to the proposed SNUR chooses not to submit a SNUN, they must keep records that document compliance with SNUR conditions for avoiding a Significant New Use . Such recordkeeping requirements essentially involve copying and filing relevant records, including those related to: use of the chemical; manufacturing, im porting, or processing, release volumes ; and the number of workers exposed to the chemical . Records must be maintained for five years from the date of their creation . The burden associated with these recordkeeping requirements for firms that choose to submit a SNUN were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Section 3.2.4 ). For firms that choose to not submit a SNUN, c osts for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements are estimated to be five percent of the reporting burden for a certain activity and are performed by clerical staff (EPA, 2005 b , page s 1 0 and 14 ) . EPA used the per- activity burden for reporting, human exposure, category of use and releases to the environment presented in the Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal) (EPA, 2005 b , page 12) . Any clerical burden associated with these activities was removed to reflect the burden reduction associated with electronic submissions (EPA, 2009a). Companies who manufacture, import, or process chemicals that are subject to the proposed SNUR but who may choose not to submit a SNUN must also comply with the recordkeeping requirements under 40 CFR §721.125 (a), (b), and (c) . The burden associated with §721.125, i.e., keeping records of production volumes, sales, and t

ransfer data , is derived in Table 9 and is expected to be $319 per chemical. The total recordkeeping burden for a company that does not submit a SNUN is estimated to be 7.56 hours and $3 50 , and is derived in Table 10 . Table 10 : Annual Per- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement for Companies that Choose not to Submit a SNUN Reporting Activity Total Burden Associated per Activity (Hours) Percent of

Reporting Burden Attributed to Recordkeeping Recordkeeping Burden (hours) (2009$) Volumes & sales/transfer data (40CFR §721.125 (a)(b)(c)) 1 - - 7.11 $319 Category of use 2 3.00 5% 0.15 $8.92 Human exposure and environmental release 2 6 .50 3 5% 0.33 $22.18 TOTAL 7.59 $350 Sources: 1 US EPA , 20 10d Economic Analysis o f Expedited Significant New Use Rules f or 25 Chemical Substances , (Table C - 14) 2 US EPA , 2005 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal) (page 12) 3 An average burden of 9.50 hours was reported for human exposure and environmental release reporting in the Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal), 2005 (page 12) . However, for this analysis the 3 hours of clerical burden were removed following the method described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EP A, 2009a) . 3.2.6 Import Certification 

### In general, promulgation of a final SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13 import certification requirement and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR § 12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR § 127.28 for all imports of the relevant chemical substances. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor receiving an imported shipment of chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR would have to certify that all chemical20



### substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 9 

### The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry document belonging to the imported shipment. In practice, import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer (EPA, 2009 c ). Any potential burden associated with a submitter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more general SNUR familiarization burden discussed above. 3.2.7 Export Notification 

### Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical subject to various TSCA sections (40 CFR §707.60 through 75) . For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section under which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one -time notification requirement 10 

### per destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance . After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the United States State Department (40 CFR §707.70) . To calculate the burden associated with making a single export notification, EPA first estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an exporter . EPA then derived the annual and per notification burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification . EPA es timated the average burden associated with making a single notification, but did not estimate either the total number of exporters of a SNUR chemical or the number of notifications per SNUR chemical . This is because the SNURs apply to a variety of different chemicals with a variety of unrelated uses, manufactures, and processors, making it impractical within the resources available for this report to assess the potential number of exporters and importing countries per chemical . Most underlying data in this section come from the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR, ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009b), with updating for inflation . Estimated Number of Annual Export Notifications per Exporter 

### EPA’s 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR estimated that the average exporter making notifications will make 12 notifications per year. 11 

### This includes notifications resulting from SNURs and notifications resulting from other TSCA activities . Therefore, it is likely that an exporter will make less than 12 notifications per year as a result of this proposed SNUR. A notification is typically no more than one page per

9 The exact statements are as follows: For imports of chemical substances subject to TSCA, “I certify that all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that I am not o ffering a chemical substance for entry in violation of TSCA or any applicable rule or order under TSCA.” For im ports of chemical substances not subject to TSCA (e.g., pesticides), “I certify that all chemicals in this shipment are not subject to TSCA.” (40 CFR 707.20) 10 On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export notification requirement for chemicals subject to TSCA §5(a)(2), 5(b), 5(e)(1) and 5(e)(2) from an annual to a one -time requirement per destination country for each exporter (November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234). 11 EPA calculated the average num ber of export notifications per exporter in the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009b) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,500) by the estimated number of exporters (300 ).21



### chemical/country combination, and one notification mailing often includes multiple chemicals and/or destination countries. 12 

### The percent of notifications resulting from SNURs in general is unknown, and it is also unknown how many notifications may result from this rulemaking, as not all manufacturers may choose to export a chemical, or they may make several notifications for a single chemical. Exporter Costs 

### The 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009b, page 11, Table 3), estimated the annual export notification cost for an exporter under the one -time export notification requirement . These costs include the cost to the exporter of compiling a list of their products that are subject to TSCA Section 12(b) requirements, writing or revi sing an export notification letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending the notification letters with the associated shipping costs The per-notification cost was calculated based on the average burden per firm . Exporters who make a larger number of notifications per year may benefit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; conversely firms making fewer notifications may have a higher cost per notification. Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs . Regulated companies will incur mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA . Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as first- class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 2010 ) . The estimated per- shipment and annual mailing costs incur

red by individual submitters are detailed in Table 11 . Table 11 : Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices Postal S ervice Cost Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.60 Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail) $2.30 Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.44 Cost per export notice - Subtotal $13.34 × 12 Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices $160 Source: Mailing rates are from the US Postal Service web site as of April 2010 (http://www.usps.com/prices/) . The mailing method comes from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005 (EPA, 2005a), as clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007c, Table 8). Note: Calculations may be rounded. 

### Compile and Maintain the List of Products . Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification . Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company . Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2009b) . The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hours per month, depending on the number of products exporte d by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009b).

12 Based on review

by an EPA economist of notifications received under TSCA Sections 4, 5 and 6 over approximately three weeks in early 2010.22



### The number of submitters per year who report under TSCA §12(b) has varied over time, rising from around 160 in 1991 to over 460 in 2000, and declining since . In the most recent TSCA §12(b) ICR, EPA estimated there would be approximately 300 submitters per year in near- future years (EPA, 2009b) . Of these 300 submitters, EPA estimated that 200 companies were near the lower burden estimate of 2 hours per year, and 100 companies were near the upper estimate of 24 hours per year . Compiling the list for all respondents was therefore estimated to take 2,800 hours (2 hours x 200 firms plus 24 hours x 100 firms), or an average of about 9.3 hours of technical time per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (EPA, 2009b). Write or Revise Export Notification . Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must prepare an export notification to send to EPA when export shipments are made . Time for initial preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the company has prior experience with this requirement . This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (EPA, 2009b). Check Orders and Send Notifications . Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above . A form letter notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required time period . This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification or 6 hours for 12 notifications (EPA, 2009b) . The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 12 . EPA estimates that the burden associated with making one notification is approximately 1.36 hours and $78.56. Table 12 : TSCA

12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification

Technical Clerical Total $/Hr Hours 2009$ $/Hr Hours 2009$ Hours 2009$ Com pile list $59.49 9.3 $553 -- -- -- 9.3 $553 Write letter $59.49 1 $59.49 -- -- -- 1 $59.49 Check order and send notice -- -- -- $28.31 6 $170 6 $170 Mailing cost 1

-- -- -- - $160 Total per average facility2` 10.3 $613 6 $170 16.3 $943 Total per Notification 0.86 $51.06 0.50 $14.15 1.36 $78.56 Notes: Costs may not equal labor wage rate times burden hours as shown due to rounding. Unrounded estimates were used during the actual cost calculations. 1 Mailing costs reflect April 2010 USPS rates and can be found in Table 11 . 2An average facility submitting notifications is assumed to submit 12 export notifications per year. Source: Appendix B of this report derives technical and clerical hourly labor costs . Other costs are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EP A, 2009b, p.10), and are updated to 2009 dollars . 

### 3.3 Summary

of Per Submission Costs, by Option The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities . The following table summarizes the costs to comply with the proposed rule amendment, as described in more detail in section 3.2 above.23

Table 13 : Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Che mi cal (2009$) 2

1. Electronic submission of a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), indicating to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, or process the chemical for a Significant New Use as defined in the SNUR . Costs of submitting a SNUN, including rule familiarization, CDX registration (for companies that are first -time submitters), form completi on ,user fee, export notification, and any test costs, Rarely, a firm may choose to conduct toxicity or fate testing to support the SNUN, but such testing is not required by law, $50.92 rule familiarization cost; $8,11 2 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee). An additional recordkeeping cost of $319 is expected for records required under 40 CFR §721.125 (a), (b), and (c). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Based on review

of recent SNUNs, it appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a SNUN (such testing would be voluntary). 3 However, EPA strongly encourages any firms that choose may choose to conduct testing to consult with EPA about what types of testing may be necessary . Export notifications costs are estimated at $78.56 per notification; total cost per company will vary. First time submitters would incur $178 for CDX registration and associated activities. 2. Manufacture, import, or process in a way that avoids a Significant New Use . Cost of the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned (opportunity costs) , recordkeeping, and export notification costs. Opportunity costs are not quantified. Other costs include rule familiarization ($50.92) , recordkeeping ($ 350 ) , and export notification costs ($ 78 .56 p er notification) wo uld apply. Recordkeeping costs include costs for keeping records under 40 CFR §721.125 (a), (b), and (c) as well as records of use type and human exposure. Notes: 1 Firms may be subject to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical. 2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm would not otherwise follow the specified practices. Costs are detailed in Section 3.2 . 3 EP A does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession and/or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes t h at no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR. 

### 3.4 Likelihood of SNUN Submission This analysis assumes that very few entities are expected to submit a SNUN . EPA has, over the years, promulgated SNURs that cover a total of more than 1,000 chemicals . In response , the Agency receives only a handful of SNUNs per year . For example, the number of SNUNs received was four in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2005, eight in FY2006, six in FY2007, and eight in FY2008, and seven in FY2009 13



### . In addition, as shown in Table 2 all of the chemicals subject to this proposed rule are currently below SNUR limits at the national level (some by an order of magnitude ) f or number of workers exposed , indicating that individ

ual companies will be even further below the SNUR limit for number of workers exposed . There are, however, eight chemicals that have reported worker numbers in the 100 - 999 range that are produced by a single company. If these single company producers are c lose to the upper end of that range and were to increase the number of workers slightly, they could exceed the SNUR trigger level. However, a s shown in Table 2 and discussed in Section 2.1 , the production/import volumes of the majority of the chemicals subject to the proposed have been declining or maintained the same volume over the past 10 -20 years . This suggests that exposures to these chemicals is less likely to increase , and therefore that worker exposures are also likely to remain constant or decrease, and these chemicals are likely to stay within SNUR limits. A single chemical, CASRN 68308 - 01 - 0, Tail gas, petroleum, cracked distillate hydrotreater stripper , is one chemical that has seen some increase in production between the 2002 and 2006 IUR 13 In-person count of SNUNs conducted by Kimberly Wilson of Abt Associates Inc , on April 8, 2010 at EPA’s Confidential Information Business C enter (CBIC) .24



### reporting cycles from no reports to production of 10 to 50 million lbs. The number of workers exposed was reported to be in the 100 - 999 range on the 2006 IUR . Should prod uction continue to increase for this chemical, there is a potential that the worker exposure could exceed 1,000, resulting in a new use of this chemical . In addition, b ased on IUR reports all the chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR are used solely for industrial purposes , therefore it is unlikely a firm will submit a SNUN for use of any of the chemical in a consumer product. 

### 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions The Agency recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from a SNUR, the Agency may take additional regulatory actions under TSCA . These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to further evaluate an intended new use and associated activities, or to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs to prevent unreasonab le risk of injury to human health or the environment . Itis not known what specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a SNUN . Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN (e.g., available information and scientific understanding about the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed) . Should the Agency’s review of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions . Included in those procedures would be an assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions.25 

## 4 – Ag enc y Costs As described in the following sections, EPA’s costs to review and proces s SNUN submissions are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs . 

### 4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington -Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effe ctive January 2009 (OPM, 2009) . EPA assumes that, on average, a federal GS - 13, Step 5 full -time equivalent (FTE) will conduct its collection and administrative activities under the proposed rule. 14 

### The average salary for a GS - 13 Step 5 employee was $98,518 in 2009 without fringe benefits and overhead costs . In order to derive the fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal fringe benefits and overhead, which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $157,629 ( see Table 14 ) . Dividing the fully loaded annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an hourly FTE wage rate of $75.78. The Agency loading factor of 1.6 is from an EPA guide entitled Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9) . The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA guide, but has been used in many EPA OPPT ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for federal staff . For example, it was used in a document supporting EPA ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000), with the following explanation: The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor) . The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA’ s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation’s Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992) . An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also overhead . 

### Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Table 14 .

14 The GS - 13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 (12/18 /2007) (EPA, 2007a), which covers PMN SNURs. Use of this grade level follows the approach introduced in EPA, 2007b. That report represented a change from an earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2003 a), which used an average of GS - 12 Step 1 and GS - 12 Step 10 salaries.26

Table 14 : Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates Labor Category Data Source for Wage

Information Date Wage Fringe Benefit Fringes

as % wage Overhead

as % wage Fringe +

overhead factor Loaded

Wages (a) (b) (c)=(b)/(a) (d) (e)=(c)+(d)+1 (f)=(a)*(e) EPA staff FTE Annual federal staff cost: OPM

Washington- Baltimore Northern Virginia, DC - MD PA-VA -WV, area, GS - 13 Step 1 pay rates a Dec 09 $98,518 (annual)

-- [Included

in 60% overhead] 60% b 1.60 $157,629 (annual) $47.36 (hourly) $75.78 (hourly) Notes : a The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS - 13 Step 5 salary ($98,518 for 2009), from the OPM salary table for the Washington - Baltimore -Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area (O PM, 2009) . Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 2,080 hours. b The 60% fringes - and - overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9). 

### 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs The list of review steps, estimates of extramural costs, and the percent of chemicals requiring a particular review step are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in Table VII - 1 of a 1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (EPA, 1994) . The Agency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that require s the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009b, p.28). For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) by the fully loaded hourly salary . This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step. The Extramural Cost column shows costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2010b). The not seasonally adjusted E CI for total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I) is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985, and that includes professional and technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural activities. Tab le 15 

### contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs. Tab le 15 : Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs

Item Inflation Index S ource Starting year Index for

starting year (a) Index

for 2009 (b) Inflation factor (b)/(a) 2 Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related , 4 th Q [BLS , 2010b ] 4 1993 67.0 111.4 1.663 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I) , extracted April 12, 2010 (BLS, 2010b ).27



### The Percent of Cases column in Table 16 is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all chemicals require each review step . For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs . Changes in weighting factors could caus e actual review costs to be higher or lower than calculated here . For example, some SNUNs require little review because they are determined to be “invalid”

– i.e. not required in the first place . However, often a SNUN may take more Agency time than a typic al PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN than would be submitted on average with a PMN . Resources were not available to update the review hours to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs . Therefore, for this analysis, the review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs. The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un-weighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step . Weighted cos ts are then multiplied by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission . This calculation yields total Agency costs of $4,934, per SNUN, for submission review and processing, as shown in Table 16 .28

Table 16 : Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing Review Steps EPA staff (FTE) Cost Extramural Cost 2 Unweighted Cost Pct. of

Cases Weighted

Cost3 ePMN

Burden Reduction 4 Weighted Cost

with ePMN Burden Reduction FTE fraction Cost per

FTE 1 FTE Total

($2009) 1993

dollars 2009

dollars (a) (b) (c)=(a)*(b) (d) (e) (f)=(c)+(e) (g) (h)=(f)*(g) (i) (j)=(h)*(1 - (i)) Pre -notice consultation 0.0024 $157,629 $378 $4.00 $6.65 $385 41% $158 0.165 $132 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $157,629 $378 $92.00 $152.97 $531 100% $531 0.165 $444 CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $157,629 $394 $268.00 $445.60 $840 100% $840 0.165 $701 SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $157,629 $95 $14.00 $23.28 $118 100% $118 0.165 $98 Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $157,629 $236 $56.00 $93.11 $330 100% $330 0.165 $275 Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $157,629 $126 $0.00 $0.00 $126 100% $126 0.165 $105 Focus 0.0009 $157,629 $142 $23.00 $38.24 $180 100% $180 0.165 $150 Standard Revie w Functions 0.0219 $157,629 $3,452 $511.00 $849.63 $4,302 29% $1,247 0.165 $1,042 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $157,629 $2,033 $113.00 $187.88 $2,221 15% $333 0.165 $278 Order Development/Negotiation Revie w 0.0171 $157,629 $2,695 $22.00 $36.58 $2,732 3% $82 0.165 $68 Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $157,629 $13,966 $0.00 $0.00 $13,966 3% $419 0.165 $350 Order Modification 0.2167 $157,629 $34,158 $0.00 $0.00 $34,158 3% $1,025 0.165 $856 New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $157,629 $4,366 $85.00 $141.33 $4,508 7% $316 0.165 $263 Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $157,629 $189 $40.00 $66.51 $256 31% $79 0.165 $66 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $157,629 $5,249 $287.00 $477.19 $5,726 1% $57 0.165 $48 CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $157,629 $63 $3.00 $4.99 $68 100% $68 0.165 $57 TOTAL $5,909 0.165 $4,934 Notes: 1 GS - 13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead . See Table 14 for derivation. 2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices u sing Tab le 15 . 3 Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table. 4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009c, p. 28). Sources: FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percents of cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII - 1, GS - 13 salaries are from OPM, 2009.29



### 4.3 Export Notification Cost Under TSCA Section 12(b), exporters must notify EPA if they intend to export chemicals subject to SNURs, as described in Section 3.2.7 . The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result from three tasks . In the first task, EPA receives export notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009b) . In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters that are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or representatives, and to the importing country’s U S embassies (EPA, 2009b) . (See Table 11 for the cost of mailing one notification). The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA 12(b) activities . The work of responding to non-routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was estimated to require roughly 400 hours per year (EPA, 2009b) . Since the current rulemaking covers only a very small percent of the chemicals subject to TSCA 12(b) reporting, a very small percent of such activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking. B ecause it is unknown how many, if any, notifications EPA will receive or send as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activity . The burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Table 17 . To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS - 13, Step 5, which is derive d in Table 17 . Table 17 : TSCA

12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2009$) Agency Activity Hours per

Activity FTE per

Activity 1 Loaded Mailing Cost Total Agency Cost

per Activity GS - 13, Step 5 FTE Wage Rate (a) (b) =

(a)/2,080 (c) (d) (e) = ((b)*(c))+(d) Process an incoming notification from an exporting company 0.10 0.000048 $157,629 $0.00 $7.58 Prepare and mail a notification to an im porting country 0.50 0.000240 $157,629 $13.34 $51.23 Notes: 1 The burden associated with an Agency activity is the burden for the Agency to process one incoming notification, or to prepare and mail an outgoing notification Source: Appendix A of this report derives Agency labor costs . Mailing costs are from Table 11 of this report. Other burdens are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2009b), updated for inflation.30 

## 5 – Benefits EPA requires additional information to fulfill its mandate under TSCA to fully assess the risks posed by the production, sale, and use of high production volume chemicals in the United States. A SNUN submission provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. It allows the Agency to take immediate action to mitigate an activity that the Agency deems harmful to the environment or human health. The proposed SNUR allows EPA to evaluate the use of, or exposure to these chemicals and allow the Agency to take preventive action to limit or prohibit any Significant New Use. EPA also expects the proposed SNUR may restrict future uses or exposure to the chemicals, as a company may choose modify planned uses, and worker exposures the chemical is such a way that does not trigger a SNUR, as opposed to submitting a SNUN. Therefore, the proposed SNUR may limit future exposure to the chemicals . There has been no data submitted to the Agency under the voluntary HPV Challenge Program for the 22 chemicals subject to this SNUR. To allow the continued widespread exposure to chemicals with unknown hazards would be contrary to the preventative goal of the Toxics Substance Control Act (TSCA).31 

## 6 – Ad ditional A nal yses 6.1 Regulatory

Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires regulators to consider the impact of regulations on small entities, in particular small businesses . EPA ’ s experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a handful of notices per year . For example, the number of SNUNs was 4 in Federal fiscal year 2005, 8 in FY2006, 6 in FY2007, 8 in FY2008, and seven in FY2009. 15 

### During this five -year period, three small entities submitted a SNUN, using the criteria for ‘ small business ’ was that the company checked the box on the PMN form, page 2, stating that it was a small business for the purpose of paying the $100 fee instead of the normal fee . 16 , 17 

### For this proposed SNUR, EPA was able to identif y manufacturer/importers of the subject chemicals based on confidential IUR data . EPA identified the ultimate parent company and obtained sales and employment data from Dun & Bradstreet Market Identifier (Dun & Bradstreet, 2010), 18 

### following a rigorous search and matching procedure. Of the 24 companies listed as manufacturers and importers through their IUR reporting, 23 companies were found in the D&B database, resulting in 23 parent companies. EPA then identified “ small ” parent companie s based on the Small Business Administration’s table of size standards in the Small Business Size Regulations, 13 CFR 121.201. These definitions for small business are provided for industries in each North American Indu stry Classification System (NAICS) code , and are based either on a company’s number of employees or its sales, depending on SBA’s criteria for that industry (U.S. SBA, 2008). For the parent companies subject to this proposed rule, the size standards range from less than 100 employees to less than 1,000 employe es, or less than $ 7 million in annual revenue (U.S. SBA, 2008). Based on these definitions, EPA identif ied two small parent companies that manufacture or import any of the chemicals subject to this rule. The RFA does not analytically define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to extent of economic impact and number of small entities affected. However, where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical entity’s revenues, the financial impacts of the regulation on such entities may be considered as not significant. EPA has often defined a lower impact threshold as compliance costs of less than 1 percent of sales and a higher impact threshold as compliance costs of greater than 3 percent of sales to evaluate whether or not the economic impacts faced by the small entities are significant. As shown in Table 13 , it is difficult to aggregate the total cost per SNUN for a company, as total cost is dependent on several factors including the number of export notification and whether or not a company is a first time submitter of a Section 5 notice. However, assuming a company submits one SNUN, one

15 February 5, 2009 email from Carol Rawie, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, to Tulika Narayan and Kimberly Wilson, Abt Associates. The counts include bo th “valid” and “invalid” SNUNs. SNUN numbering is according to Federal fiscal year, ending September 30. 16 February 5, 2009 email from Carol Rawie, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to Tulika Narayan and Kimberly Wilson, Abt Associates. 17 In order to submit SNUN as a “small business” a company needs to be classified as small using the TSCA based definition of annual revenue of less than $4,000,000 per year. This definition is not consistent with the definition of a small business us ing Small Business Administration (SBA) NAICs based definitions. 18 Dun and Bradstreet is a New York-based company that provides business information through a global commercial database. It assigns DUNS numbers to identify businesses around the world. These numbers are required for many U.S. federal government transactions and therefore are widely used and assigned. DUNS numbers are also frequently used in corporate research. Databas e entries provide legal and trade names, physical and mailing addresses, geographi cal descriptions, product and industry descriptors, sales and number of employees for three years and associated growth rates, as well as up to 40 vital statistics about each organization. While the reporting year varied by company, company sales and employment data were primarily retrieved from the database in 2010.32



### export notification, keeps records under 40 CFR §721.125 (a), (b), and (c) and has a one time rule familiarization and CDX registration costs , a company would have a total cost of $ 8, 727 associated with submitting one SNUN . For this small entity analysis, the total cost of submitting a SNUN was annualized over a 15 -year time horizon using a 7 percent discount rate for an annual cost of approximately $960. T o have a sales -to - cost ratio of greater than one percent a company must have less than $ 95, 944 in sales annually. Of the two small companies that produce the subject chemicals , neither is expected to have an impact greater than one percent if they choose to submit a SNUN. EPA estimates the small company with the least amount of revenue would have to submit approximately 160,000 export notifications to have a sales -to - cost ratio of one percent. Therefore, EPA does not expect the proposed rule to 

### have an impact of greater than 1% on any small business that chooses to submit a SNUN. These results are summarized in Table 18 . Table 18 : Estimate of Impacts on Small Business Economic Impact Type Cost- to - Sales Pct. Threshold Sales Dollar Threshold (2009 dollars) Number of Small Businesses with Impact Higher Impact > 3% <$ 31,981 0 Lo wer Impact 1% to 3% $95,944 to $ 31,981 0 Less than 1% Impact < 1% > $95,944 2 

### This leaves open the question of the impact on small businesses that are affected but do not submit SNUNs. For example, businesses may change their behavior in order to use a chemical in a manner that avoids triggering significant new use notification requirements and make no submission to EPA. Small businesses may be affe cted by this proposed SNUR without EPA being aware; for example, if the firms have made no submissions or comments to EPA. However, even if a small business were interested in supplying a SNUR chemical, the SNUR’s impact on profits is generally expected to be minor. For example, the firm may have a small expense of keeping records (approximately $378) and/or of changing workplace practices to comply with any new restrictions . If modifying practices would be overly costly, the small business may instead fore go production, thus sacrificing profits. The lost profits, if any, were not quantified for this report . 

### 6.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments because none of the current producers of the subject chemicals are governments. Additionally, it is not expected that any governments will initiate production of these chemical s. 

### 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register , are listed in 40 CFR, part 9, and included on the related c ollection instrument, or form, if applicable. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070 - 0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188).33



### This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 103.3 hours per response : 0.82 hours for rule familiarization (Section 3.2.1 ), 2.80 hours for CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and pay.gov account setup (Section 3.2.2 ), 98. 79 hours for form completion, submission and recordkeeping (Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 ), and 1.36 hours for export notification (Section 3.2.7 ). 

### 6.4 Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” Policies that have federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various l evels of government” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The proposed rule establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements that apply to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of certain chemicals. EPA has no information to indicate that any state or local government manufactures or processes the chemical substances covered by this action. 

### 6.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low - income populations in the United States. The information collected under this proposed rule, if finalized, will assist EPA and others in determining the potential hazards and risks associated with various chemicals manufactured and used at high production volumes. Although not directly impacting environmental justice -related concerns, this information will enable the Agency to better protect human health and the environment, including in lowincome and minority communities. 

### 6.6 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children Executive Order 13045, Protectio n of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires EPA to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children . This type of analysis is required for rules that will have an impact of $100 million or more only . The impact of this SNUR will be less than $100 million and therefore no analysis of such impacts on children is required. 

### 6.7 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 is Consultatio n and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000) . This rule does not have Tribal implications because EPA has no information to indicate that any tribal government manufactures or processes the chemical substances covered by this action .34



### 6.8 Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.35 

## 7 – References 29 CFR 1910. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Title 29, November 25, 1983. Updated July 7, 2004. 40 CFR 721 Toxic Substances Control Act, Significant New Uses for Chemical Substances Code of Federal Regulations . Part 721 Title 40 , July 27, 1988, as amended, June 23, 1993 63 FR 41847. Test Guidelines; Notice of Availability, Federal Register, Volume 63, August 5, 1998. 64 FR 60914. Category for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances, F ederal Register, Volume 64, November 8, 1999. 71 FR 6733. Export Notification; Proposed Change to Reporting Requirements, Federal Register, Volume 71, February 9, 2006. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as docket EPA -HQ - OPPT -2005 - 005 8 at http://www.regulations.gov . 75 FR 773. TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture and Significant New Use Notification Electronic Reporting; Revisions to Notification Regulations, Federal Register, Volume 75, January 6, 2010. ASTM. American Society for Standards and Materials. http://www.astm.org. BLS, 2006a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS. Downloaded February 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0003.htm. BLS, 2006b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov. BLS, 2006c. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Change has Come to the ECI (June 14, 2006) at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0001.htm BLS, 2010a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2009 ”. (March 10, 2010) at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc13.pdf . BLS, 2010b . Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I) , extracted April 12, 2010. Branch, 2006. Raphael E. Branch and Lowell Mason. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC.” Monthly Labor Review . Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006 . Available at www.bls.gov . Caroll, 2006 . Richard E. Caroll. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview.” Monthly Labor Review . Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006 . Available at www.bls.gov Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). 2010. Duns Market Identifier Database. EPA , 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC, June 1, 1992. EPA, 1994. U. S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact An alysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.) EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1139.06. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions,36



### and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000. EPA, 2002a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington, DC. August 2002. EPA, 2002b. U.S. EPA, Office of Polluti on Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC: June 10, 2002. EPA, 2003a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances. Washington, DC, 2003. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA- HQ OPPTS -2002 - 0078 at http://www.re gulations.gov . EPA, 2005a. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA -HQ - OPPT - 2005 - 005 8 - 0017 at http://www.regulations.gov . EPA, 2005b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICR No. 118.08. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal). Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, October 11, 2005. EPA, 2007a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act, December 6, 2007. EPA, 2007b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances (EPA Dock et OPPT - 2003 - 0063), December 4, 2006 (Revised March 12, 2007). EPA, 2007c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Do cket OPPT - 2006 - 0898

), August 17, 2007 EPA, 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule . (EPA -HQ - OPPT -2008 - 0296) . July 13, 2009 EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . March 6, 2009 at http://www.regulations.gov . EPA, 2009c, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 2009. Section 13 Import Certification . Available at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/importexport/pubs/sec13.html. Accessed March 30, 2010. EPA, 2010a. US EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Database, “TRI Explorer: 2008 Releases: Chemical Report”. Available at (http: //www.epa.gov/triexplorer/). 2008 Data Update as of February 2010 . Accessed July 28, 2010.37



### EPA, 2010b. US EPA, Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Database, “Non- confidential 2006 IUR Company/Chemical Records”. Available at (http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cf m). Updated May 12, 2010 . Accessed July 2010 . EPA, 2010c. US EPA, Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Database, “Non- confidential Production Volume information 1986 - 2002”. Available at (http://www.epa.gov/iur/tools/data/2002 -vol.html). Updated May 18, 2010. EPA, 2010d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances , (EPA Docket OPPT -2009 - 0922) Not Yet Published Kearney, 1988a. Memorandum to Bill Massouda, Reporting and recordkeeping costs for a generic SNUR, February 3, 1988. [Memo submitted to U.S. EPA/Office of Toxic Substances (now OPPT) under contract 68 - 02 - 3980 with A.T.Kearney, Inc.]. Kearney, 1988b. Estimated Cost of the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, June 1, 1988. Prepared by Kearney/Centaur for US EPA. OPM, 2008. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2008-DCB, Washington BaltimoreNorthern Virginia, DC

-MD-PA - VA - WV. Accessed f rom http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/pdf/DCB.pdf . OPM, 2009. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2009-DCB, Washington BaltimoreNorthern Virginia, DC

-MD-PA - VA - WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/pdf/DCB.pdf . SBA. 2008. United States Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Available at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf Sleemi, 2006. Fehimida Sleemi. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Cost Index Publication Plans”. Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. available at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/04/art2full.pdf Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. C omparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 25, 2004 at http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20040823ar01p1.htm38 

## Ap pendix A : INFLATORS A ND WAGE RATES This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs . Costs for this report are for year- end 200 9 . 

### A.1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe benefits and overhead to the wage or salary to derive a fully loaded labor cost . The basic method is described in Wage Rates for Econo mic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b) . The resulting loaded labor rates are given in Table 0 - 1 . Costs are calculated for s everal labor categories: Managerial, Professional/Technical, Clerical, and EPA staff. In March 2004, BLS began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes instead of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system instead of the Occupational Classification System (OCS) . The following table shows the crosswalk between old and new occupational titles. EPAB Reports Labor Category BLS Old Title (OCS) BLS New Title (SOC) Managerial Executive, administrative, and managerial Management, business, and financial Professional/Technical Professional specialty and technical Professional and related Clerical Administrative support, including clerical Office and administrative support Source: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2 . ECEC Occupational Com parability between SOC and OCS (BLS, 2006a and Weinstein, 2004 ) . 

### A.1.1 Derivation of Labor Rates for Managerial, Professional/Technical, Cle rical, and Production Labor Wages and fringe benefits for managerial, professional/technical, clerical and production labor were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, 19 

### for December, for manuf

acturing industries. 20 

### The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series . Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each labor category . For example, for December 200 9 , the average wage rate for professional/technical21 

### labor was $35. 96 ; the average fringe benefit was $17. 42 . Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $17. 42/$35. 96 , or approximately 4 8.4 percent. An additional loading factor of 17 percen t is applied to wages to account for overhead . This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major

19 This follows the approach introduced in Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT -2003 - 0063 (EPAB, 2007a) . 20 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 200 9 . (BLS, 20 10 a) . This follows the approach introduced in EPAB, 2007a. Earlier PMN SNUR economic analyses, such as EPA, 2003 a , used ECEC data for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and construction) . However, the manufacturing sector data seem more relevant since the SNURs mainly affect the chemicals industry. 21 This follows terminology introduced in EPAB, 2007a. Earlier SNUR economic analyses used the term “technical” labor. Here the category is called “professional/technical” labor, to make clear how it relates to BLS categories . In 2004, BLS changed from the Occupational Classification System, OCS, to the Standard Occupational Classification system, SOC . In the process, the “Professi onal specialty and technical” category became the “Professional and related” category . However, the coverage of the old and new occupational groups is approximately the same . See the BLS article, C omparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series (Weinstein, 2004).39



### rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a) . This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage . For example, the December 2009 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $35.96 × (1+0.4844 + 0.17) = $59.49 . Fully loaded costs for managerial, clerical, and production labor are calculated in a similar manner, as shown in 

### Table 0 - 1 . 

### A.1.3 Derivation of Labor Rates for EPA Staff Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington -Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2008 (OPM, 2008) . The average salary for one FTE staff member is estimated as the salary for a GS - 13 Step 5 employee. 22 

### Multiplying the annual pay by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead, the loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $150,440. The Agency loading factor is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9) . The 6 0 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA Guide, but has been used in many EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for Federal staff . For example, it was used in an August 2000 document supporting ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000), with the following explanation: “The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor) . The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA’s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation’s Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992) . An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also overhead.” (ICR No.1139.06)

22 The GS - 13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 (12/18/2007), which covers PMN SNURs. Use of this grade level follows the approach introduced in EPAB, 2007a. That report represented a change from the earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2003a), which used an average of GS - 12 Step 1 and GS - 12 Step 10 salaries.40



### Table 0 - 1 : Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates EPAB Labor Category Data Sources Date Wage Fringe Benefit Fringes as

% W age Overhead % W age 2 Fringe +

Overhead Factor Loaded Wages 1 (a) (b) (c) =(b)/(a) (d) (e)=(c)+(d)+1 (f)=(a) x (e) Managerial BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing

industries, “Mgt, Business, and Financial” Dec - 09 $42.36 $18.68 44.10% 17% 1.61 $68.24 Professional/ Technical BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing

industries , “Professional and related“ Dec - 09 $35.96 $17.42 48.44% 17% 1.65 $59.49 Clerical BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing

industries, “Office and Administrative Support” Dec - 09 $17.21 $ 8.17 47.47% 17% 1.64 $28.31 EPA staff FTE Annual Federal staff cost: OPM

Washington- Baltimore -Northern Virginia, DC - MD - PA-VA -WV, area, GS - 13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60% overhead. 3 Dec - 09 $98,518(annual) -- [Included in 60% overhead] 60% 1.6 $157,629 (annual) Notes: 1 Wage data are rounded to the closest penny in this table; however, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unrounded values were used. 2An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EP A, 2002b ), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002 a). 3 The salary is unloaded Federal GS - 13 Step 5 salary for calendar 200 9 , from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Washington - Baltimore -Northern V irginia (OPM, 200 9 ) . The 60% fringes - and - overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EP A, 1992 , page 30, footnote 9).41



## A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors Complete information on the derivation of the inflation factors used is given in Table 0 -2 . In 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) made several changes to the Employment Cost Index . The changes are described on a BLS web page, “Change has come to the ECI,” (BLS, 2006c) and in several April 2006 Monthly Labor Review articles posted on the BLS web site: “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview” (Caroll 2006); “Employment Cost Index Publication Plans” (Sleemi, 2006); and “Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC” (Branch, 2006). Under a mandate from OMB, BLS changed its classification of industries and occup ations from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Occupational Classification System (OCS) to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system . In 2006, BLS adjusted all ECI series to reflect this change. In addition to changing the industry and occupational classification systems, in 2006, BLS rebased the ECI from June 1989 = 100 to December 2005 = 100 for all current and historical non- seasonally adjusted series, including the NAIC S and SIC based series . (Seasonally adjusted indices, including those in Table 0 -2 of this report, may not exactly equal 100 for December 2005 as a result of the seasonal adjustment . Seasonal adjustments are explained in Branch, 2006.) According to BLS, the official ECI for the years 1975 - 2005 is the SIC - OCS based series, and for subse quent years, the official ECI is the NAICS - SOC based series (Sleemi, 2006, p.8). 23 

### “Starting year” indices in Table 0 -2 continue to be SIC - OCS based . Current year indices are NAICS - SOC based . We use indices from both the NAICS - SOC and the SIC - OCS based ECI series because neither series spans the entire period over which testing and other costs need to be inflated.

23 BLS has been publishing the NIACS - SOC based ECI series since March 2001 and it became official in March 2006. The SIC OCS based series and NAICS - SOC series have different series ID numbers, even when they describe essentially the same population. For example the series ID for seasonally adjusted total compensation for all private industry workers is ECS10002I for the SIC - OCS series and CIS2010000000000I for the NAICS - SOC series .42



### Table 0 - 2 : Derivation of Inflation Factors

Item Inflation Index Source 1 Starting Y ear Index for Starting Year (a) Index for

200 9 (b) Inflation

F actor (b)/(a) 2 Export notification BLS ECI, not SA, Total comp, Private industry, White Collar . ECS11102I, 4 th Q [BLS, 20 10 a] 1993 66.5 110.4 1.660 Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, not SA, Total comp, Private industry, White Collar . ECS11102I, 4 th Q [BLS, 20 10 a] 1993 67.0 111.4 1.663 Labels, placards etc. BLS CPI, inflation calculator, not SA. Annual [BLS, 20 10b ] 1997 160.5 214.537 1.337 File cabinet Photocopies BLS CPI, inflation calculator, Annual [BLS, 20 10b] 1988 118.3 214.537 1.813 Record keeping materials Key: BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics. CP I = Consumer Price Index. ECI = Employment Cost Index. SA = Seasonally Adjusted. Total Comp = Total Compensation (wages/salaries and benefits) . 4th Q = Fourth Quarter. “ECS10002I” etc. refer to BLS series Ids. Notes: 1 In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) series “were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1989 = 100.” The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News R elease Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b) . The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased . “Starting year” ECI indices are SIC - OCS based: Seasonally Adjusted (SA) ECS10002I for private industry All Workers, and not SA ECU11122I for private industry Professional and Related Workers. After 2006, ECI indices are NAICS - SOC based: Seasonally Adjusted (SA) CIS2010000000000I for private industry All Workers, and not SA CIU2010000120000I (B ) for private industry P rofessional, and Related workers . 

## 1 Inflation factors are rounded to three decimal places in this table, but calculations in this report use the unrounded values . BLS CPI values were published with one decimal place through 2006 and with three decimal places after that. 3 We began using the ECI for Private Industry All Workers in EP A, 2007b , to better reflect the labor mix for impermeability testing . Earlier PMN SNUR economic analyses used the ECI for Private Industry White Collar Workers. 4 Beginning with th e report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT - 2009- 0922 (EPA, 2010d) we began to use the not- seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of S A CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because BLS retired the “white collar” serie s .